adam pogioli wrote:As I have said before, I don't think you need to explain basic principles in detail, but I do think many of the people I would direct to this book could use some refreshers, especially on the more difficult concepts we may have learned in high school but haven't used in decades.

Can you quantify this? I've been watching some TEDx videos on modern education (or lack, thereof), particularly in connection with smartPhone addiction, which seems to inhibit long-term memory formation. (Why remember it, when you can just Google it again?) This has crippled the younger generations (under 40) from learning new ideas, because they cannot remember enough of the fundamentals to piece together a larger picture. That is what is making this book challenging. If a reader cannot remember the fundamentals of math and science, there is nothing to build a theory on.

So if you can assist to identify which fundamental components are needed to understand the RS, I can include that as a short "refresher" or primer.

As you say of imaginary numbers, I feel like even some basic mathematical operations have a different meaning in the context of the RS that would be great to hear about.

Aside from returning "imaginary numbers" to their original context of an axial twist, the only other concept that people seem to have difficulty with is Larson's concept of

*displacements*, a displacement from unit speed:

Speed 2/1 = Displacement 0-0-(1)

Speed 1/2 = Displacement 0-0-1

It is actually a weird form of subtraction:

1/2 - 1/1 = 0/1 = 1

2/1 - 1/1 = 1/0 = (1)

where the numerator and denominators are treated as independent from each other, then the spatial aspect (numerator) is put in parenthesis, to show which aspect the displacement is in. This also prohibits ratios like 2/3 - 1/1 = (1)2 = ? because you cannot express BOTH a spatial and temporal displacement in the same equation. This comes from Larson's restriction of having to switch aspects/dimensions with each operation.

Otherwise, the math is the same.

I am sure you don't want to lose the interest of your more advanced readers, so if you want to put some of that as footnotes, either as your explanations or just suggested references when appropriate, that makes sense. I would just say that it really helps to get some explanation as to why a certain mathematical device is being used.

Footnotes are too limited in space for most of the concepts. I would think an advanced reader would just skim over the parts already familiar to him.

I'm not really focusing on advanced readers, because they are a very small minority. The majority of readers of the RS/RS2 material are "armchair physicist" types, usually with a New Age background and got to the material via The Law of One/Ra Material (the questioner, Don Elkins, was a friend of Dewey Larson), David Wilcock or the --daniel papers. And they seem to have an easier job understanding, because there is a lot less to "unlearn." I know that was the case with me, personally... not so much learning something new, but learning what concepts I held as "truth" that were blocking my understanding.

Larson tried for decades to get the scientific community to look at his work--which he firmly believed was exactly what they were looking for. Yet, no interest. There is a huge file of "rejection letters" from almost every physics and astronomy publication on the planet in the ISUS archive. Got to give Larson credit for trying!

The intro book you had up before the site-move began in this generalist fashion but eventually jumped to niche subjects that didn't seem to follow naturally. I always assumed it wasn't all conceived as a book but stitched together for convenience.

I ran out of thread and never finished the stitching. The numerical introduction forms the first part of this book.

But even at the start of this essay things just seem lacking in context. Even with a previous section on the basics of the reciprocal relation, this section seems uncertain as to the principles it is building off of.

What context is missing? I've worked with it for so long, I cannot locate that missing link in my own mind.

I am not following how you get from pure magnitudes to the sheer stresses resulting from different directions in space and time. Are space and time just aspects of a ratio, or are they in some kind of expanding space?

Inward and outward are "directions," and any time you have something linked (like a ratio) that does not have uniform motion, the concept of "shear" results. Birotation is a good example, where two, opposite rotations form a sine wave--the rotation gets "rippled" into the wave by shearing.

I was thinking that the visual of shear stress/strain might relate the concept, but perhaps people don't visualize shearing? (It is a very mechanical system from the old days.)

I realize some of this may have been addressed in your first section, but there are some fundamental philosophical questions that if addressed early on--perhaps with some topology/projective geometry-- could clarify what is pretty vague and confusing with Larson.

Larson has always been a "chicken and the egg" problem... it is hard to know what to put first, since it is based on a cyclic (re: steady-state) concept of the Universe. The starting point of an explanation depends heavily on what the reader already knows, and that varies significantly from person-to-person.

On page 2 you say: "One of the basic principles of the Reciprocal System is that you cannot do the same thing twice in succession."

I just assumed that was a "given" for anyone who has read any of Larson's books, as that led to the whole sequence of making a rotational base.

But I need to see why something is the way it is before I will follow an idea to its next steps.

Can you provide an example? Take a concept you understand from the RS and list the steps that you needed to get to that understanding.

Every dogma has its day...